On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:20 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
It depends on how much you're willing to throw away. If we were to throw
away the whole rafsi system and start afresh, then the rules could be
made much more simple.
I would be very interested in seeing said simpler rules. If those rules were not only quite-a-bit simpler, but *much* *much* simpler, then that would be yet another good reason to do away with rafsi and the morphological split between lujvo and zi'evla/fu'ivla.Well, if we throw away rafsi but keep the look-and-feel of brivla, we can replace the current 35 rules that deal with brivla with just a single one: Basically something like:brivla <- !cmevla !cmavo !h &onset unstressed-syllable+ stressed-syllable &post-wordThat basically gives any valid string of syllables, with penultimate stress, that either start with a cluster or with a cmavo form followed by a non-initial C/C, and ends with a vowel, Depending on how we want to go, y-syllables and consonantal syllables could be allowed as well or not, It's clear that all the complications of brivla morphology come from the rafsi system.The cmavo rule would also be slightly simplified since it wouldn't have to deal with the CVCy-lujvo exception.
mu'o mi'e xorxes--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.